| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-09 18:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+e30eHjUU4DjbaytP_Hp51P=X6A+ifPkLpQFEAW34z7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 January 2014 21:40, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
>> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
>> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or
>> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
>> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
>> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
>
> I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't
> actually understand what they'd be getting.
Agreed.
Just to be clear, I made this mistake initially. Now I realise Heikki
was right and if you think about it long enough, you will too. If you
still disagree, think hard, read the archives until you do.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-09 18:28:11 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-09 18:21:15 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |